Comments on: The Scientific Method, Half-Finished but Wholly-Accepted http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:39:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: John Hunter http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-174279 Sat, 31 May 2008 20:35:09 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-174279 One of the other authors of <a href="http://statisticsforexperimenters.net/" rel="nofollow">Statistics for Experimenters</a> was my father :-) <a href="http://williamghunter.net/" rel="nofollow">William Hunter</a>. It is great to keep hearing from people that like the book. One of the other authors of Statistics for Experimenters was my father :-) William Hunter. It is great to keep hearing from people that like the book.

]]> by: Nathan Myers http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-161753 Mon, 05 May 2008 15:28:11 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-161753 I'm not an experimental psychologist. Doesn't it take a long time to test a hypothesis thoroughly? Aren't there many, many phenomena still lacking definitive explanation? For many years the only plausible hypotheses were behaviorist. Inventing plausible behaviorist hypotheses is really hard. More generally, the hardest part about inventing hypotheses is to stop pretending to know what you don't really. Limiting yourself to what grant committee members and journal referees would welcome makes hypothesizing artificially difficult. I’m not an experimental psychologist. Doesn’t it take a long time to test a hypothesis thoroughly? Aren’t there many, many phenomena still lacking definitive explanation?

For many years the only plausible hypotheses were behaviorist. Inventing plausible behaviorist hypotheses is really hard. More generally, the hardest part about inventing hypotheses is to stop pretending to know what you don’t really. Limiting yourself to what grant committee members and journal referees would welcome makes hypothesizing artificially difficult.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160613 Sun, 04 May 2008 02:24:13 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160613 "Any competent scientist can come up with more hypotheses that he can afford to test carefully." More <i>plausible</i> hypotheses? That is the opposite of my experience. In my field, experimental psychology, it is extraordinarily hard to come up with new treatments that will plausibly have a big effect on the main things we study. What are you basing this statement on? “Any competent scientist can come up with more hypotheses that he can afford to test carefully.” More plausible hypotheses? That is the opposite of my experience. In my field, experimental psychology, it is extraordinarily hard to come up with new treatments that will plausibly have a big effect on the main things we study. What are you basing this statement on?

]]> by: Nathan Myers http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160381 Sat, 03 May 2008 18:01:33 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160381 My point was that any competent scientist can come up with more hypotheses than he can afford to test carefully, and way more than his or her colleagues can afford to pay attention to, in aggregate. With science, we can offer reasons why somebody else should pay attention to our ravings. This was the problem that al-Haytham first addressed. Ravings were perhaps more prevalent then. My point was that any competent scientist can come up with more hypotheses than he can afford to test carefully, and way more than his or her colleagues can afford to pay attention to, in aggregate. With science, we can offer reasons why somebody else should pay attention to our ravings. This was the problem that al-Haytham first addressed. Ravings were perhaps more prevalent then.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160158 Sat, 03 May 2008 09:50:54 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160158 thanks for the explanation, LemmusLemmus. I think self-experimentation isn't a basic principle of science, it just is one way to follow a basic principle, which I would state as: "to find new ideas worth testing, gather data quickly and cheaply." Nathan, what does "hypotheses fall from the sky like rain" mean? It sounds too passive. It is hard to increase the rate of rainfall; it is much easier, I'm sure, for a scientist to increase the rate at which they generate new ideas worth testing. thanks for the explanation, LemmusLemmus. I think self-experimentation isn’t a basic principle of science, it just is one way to follow a basic principle, which I would state as: “to find new ideas worth testing, gather data quickly and cheaply.”

Nathan, what does “hypotheses fall from the sky like rain” mean? It sounds too passive. It is hard to increase the rate of rainfall; it is much easier, I’m sure, for a scientist to increase the rate at which they generate new ideas worth testing.

]]> by: Nathan Myers http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160033 Sat, 03 May 2008 05:37:37 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-160033 Astrophysicists have much bigger problems these days than not being able to apply self-experimentation. Most of what they theorize about (black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy) very likely doesn't exist at all. Everything they see (planets excepted) and everything in between is made out of stuff whose behavior is governed by completely intractable mathematics they prefer not to think about at all. The scientific method was invented in its entirety by one ibn al-Haytham, a bit more than a thousand years ago. (He is known in mathematics as Alhazen and Alhacen, in different contexts.) He was under house arrest in Egypt, and spent his time in confinement founding the study of optics. He invented science in order to obviate the need to appeal to authority. His book on optics was the standard reference for centuries after, and well known to Francis Bacon. Hypotheses fall from the sky like rain. Science provides a way to cull the wrong ones. It fails completely if you don't want to cull the wrong ones. Astrophysicists have much bigger problems these days than not being able to apply self-experimentation. Most of what they theorize about (black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy) very likely doesn’t exist at all. Everything they see (planets excepted) and everything in between is made out of stuff whose behavior is governed by completely intractable mathematics they prefer not to think about at all.

The scientific method was invented in its entirety by one ibn al-Haytham, a bit more than a thousand years ago. (He is known in mathematics as Alhazen and Alhacen, in different contexts.) He was under house arrest in Egypt, and spent his time in confinement founding the study of optics. He invented science in order to obviate the need to appeal to authority. His book on optics was the standard reference for centuries after, and well known to Francis Bacon.

Hypotheses fall from the sky like rain. Science provides a way to cull the wrong ones. It fails completely if you don’t want to cull the wrong ones.

]]> by: LemmusLemmus http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158905 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:35:07 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158905 Seth, for example, if you're an astrophysicist, self-experimentation will not help much. Seth,

for example, if you’re an astrophysicist, self-experimentation will not help much.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158857 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:43:23 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158857 "The list is going to vary depending on the subject." Interesting idea -- why do you think this? “The list is going to vary depending on the subject.” Interesting idea — why do you think this?

]]> by: LemmusLemmus http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158770 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:35:40 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158770 Seth, the "you can't teach..." wording was much too strong, even wrong. It would be more accurate to say that it is harder: My main point was that there is a fairly standardized method to test ideas - formulate the hypothesis, collect data, etc. - and there is no such standardized method for coming up with ideas. I'm definitely not against telling students to come up with ideas by looking closely at the data, introspection, self-experimentation, and so forth. In fact, it would be useful to have an as-exhaustive-as-possible-list in a textbook. The list is going to vary depending on the subject. (It's been a long time since I read that book; that was not a verbatim quote.) As an aside, I once read an article in a German sociology journal that included a long and winding paragraph in which the authors justified not deriving their hypothesis from the previous literature, but simply from everyday observations. I have a funny feeling that one was included in response to a reviewer's comment. Seth,

the “you can’t teach…” wording was much too strong, even wrong. It would be more accurate to say that it is harder: My main point was that there is a fairly standardized method to test ideas - formulate the hypothesis, collect data, etc. - and there is no such standardized method for coming up with ideas. I’m definitely not against telling students to come up with ideas by looking closely at the data, introspection, self-experimentation, and so forth. In fact, it would be useful to have an as-exhaustive-as-possible-list in a textbook. The list is going to vary depending on the subject.

(It’s been a long time since I read that book; that was not a verbatim quote.)

As an aside, I once read an article in a German sociology journal that included a long and winding paragraph in which the authors justified not deriving their hypothesis from the previous literature, but simply from everyday observations. I have a funny feeling that one was included in response to a reviewer’s comment.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158762 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:11:34 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/04/29/the-scientific-method-half-finished-but-wholly-accepted/#comment-158762 "You can't teach how to come up with new ideas." I think you can. One way to come up with new ideas -- that is, increase the chances of this happening -- is to do a better job of analyzing your data. To examine it more thoroughly. This will sometimes reveal hard-to-explain anomalies. These anomalies will often inspire new ideas. Note that this particular method was not one of the ones listed in that methodological book LemmusLemmus read. “You can’t teach how to come up with new ideas.” I think you can. One way to come up with new ideas — that is, increase the chances of this happening — is to do a better job of analyzing your data. To examine it more thoroughly. This will sometimes reveal hard-to-explain anomalies. These anomalies will often inspire new ideas. Note that this particular method was not one of the ones listed in that methodological book LemmusLemmus read.

]]>